Bissoy.com
Doctors Medicines MCQs Q&A

X' files a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against 'Y' and files an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1(c), Code of Civil Procedure, The Court dismisses the application for temporary injunction. 2 months later, during the pendency of the suit, X again files for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1(c), Code of Civil Procedure, citing new facts and changed circumstances.

X' files a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against 'Y' and files an application for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rule 1(c), Code of Civil Procedure, The Court dismisses the application for temporary injunction. 2 months later, during the pendency of the suit, X again files for temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 1(c), Code of Civil Procedure, citing new facts and changed circumstances. Correct Answer Res judicata does not apply to interlocutory orders like temporary injunctions

Related Questions

In a contractual dispute between two parties A and B, A files a suit in New Delhi where the cause of action arose. Two days later, B files a suit in the same matter in Mumbai, where A is resident. The pendency of the first suit is not brought to the notice of the court in Mumbai. The court pronounces judgement in second suit before the first suit is decided. Would such decision operate as a bar on the court in New Delhi to try the suit any further?
Which of the following statements are correct in the context of Section 5 of Code of Civil Procedure?
1. Revenue Court is a part of Civil Court
2. Civil Court. means courts having original jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure but not Revenue Court
3. Civil Court means courts having original jurisdiction under Code of Civil Procedure including Revenue Court
4. Revenue Court is not a part of Civil Court
A' the tenant files a suit for permanent injunction against 'B' the landlord for not to be dispossessed except by due process of law pleading that 'B' is planning to forcibly dispossess him. During the pendency of above suit, 'B' attempts to forcibly disposes 'A'. 'A' files another suit for injunction.
To constitute a matter of res judicata which of the following conditions must concur?
1. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit or issue must be the same matter which was directly and substantially in issue either actually (section 11, explanation III) or constructively (section 11, explanation IV) in the former suit
2. The former suit must have been a suit between the same parties under whom they or any of them claim. Explanation VI of Section 11 must be read with this condition
3. The parties as aforesaid must have litigated under the same title in the former suit
4. The court which decided the former suit must have been a court competent to try the subsequent suit of the suit in which such issue has been subsequently raised. Explanation II of section 11 is to be read with condition
5. The matter directly and substantially in issue in the subsequent suit must have been heard and finally decided by the court in the first suit. Explanation V of section 11 is to be read with this condition
An application for grant of temporary injunction shall be decided, in cases of grant of ex parte temporary injunction, as provided under Order XXXIX, Rule 3A of Code of Civil Procedure, within
Which of the following combinations are correctly matched?
1. Temporary ⇔ Order 39 Code of Civil Procedure injunction
2. Suit by Indigent ⇔ Order 33 Code of Civil Procedure person
3. Powers of Appellate ⇔ Section 102 Code of Civil Procedure Hate Court
4. Right to file ⇔ Section 148A Code of Civil Procedure caveat
Select correct answer:
A', an Indian citizen, enters into a contract with 'B', a US citizen based in the USA. Certain disputes arise under the contract, and 'B' files a suit in the matter in the civil court of New York. 'A' files a counter claim in the said suit. Subsequently, 'A' files a suit in the same matter in the jurisdictional Civil Court in New Delhi. Is the latter court barred from trying the suit?
A suit was instituted impleading the defendants in a representative capacity. Publication of the notice of the suit was made in a leading daily as directed by Court while granting permission under Order I, Rule 8. Later on the suit happened to be dismissed for default. Plaintiff filed application under Order IX, Rule 9 to restore the suit. Is it necessary to direct publication of the notice regarding the restoration application also in a leading daily to have effective service on all the persons interested?
When a suit is dismissed under Order IX, Rule 2 or under Order IX, Rule 3 of Code of Civil Procedure, a fresh suit under Order IX, Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, the same cause of action is
The assignee of the holder of a life estate sued for declaration of title and injunction, immediately after the death of the life estate-holder. The suit for declaration of title was decreed, but the suit for injection was dismissed after holding that the possession was with the defendants only. Subsequently, the assignee of the life estate filed a suit for possession on the strength of the title. The bar of O. 2, r 2 was raised by the defendant.